The effect of digital platforms on the development of the Russian economy: A mathematical model of regulatory effects and empirical verification

To the present, digital platforms, as an institution organizing economic activity (platform economy), represent a key driver of the modern economy in many countries. This institution can be understood as a mechanism that harnesses technological capabilities of an advanced digital economy. A fundamental characteristic of this form of economic organization is that it is a private institution. Its operation is based on the benefits that economic agents receive or expect to receive from its use. At the same time, digital platforms may abuse their market position, which necessitates the development of regulatory constraints. Moreover, the development of this phenomenon significantly outpaces its legal regulation. A principal challenge of existing regulation lies in the fact that it is largely developed in the absence of reliable assessments of the scale of the platform economy and without thorough analysis of the economic impact of different regulatory scenarios. So the costs of regulatory measures can exceed those of non-intervention, both for consumers and for the country. This article addresses the task of identifying the parameters of such an optimal regulatory framework, alongside evaluating the economic effects of digital platforms’ activities on Russia’s GDP under various regulatory scenarios. To this end, an agent-based model was employed, enabling the assessment of the impact of different regulatory scenarios without substitution effects — that is, without resource reallocation within the economy in response to regulation — across six scenarios. One of the key parameters for the baseline assessment is the contribution of digital platforms to Russia’s GDP, estimated at 5.5% in 2024. This estimate is derived from aggregated transaction data processed by the four largest Russian platforms in the goods and services sectors between 2021 and 2024, which account for approximately 80% of all digital platform activity. The modeling results indicate that even the implementation of a single stringent measure (such as strict quality control, rigorous discount regulation, or reclassification of employment status from self-employment) leads to an estimated GDP reduction of approximately 2.2 to 2.4 p.p. by 2028, absent substitution effects. Conversely, a balanced regulatory approach demonstrates the fastest convergence and a GDP growth impulse of 2.66 p.p. without substitution effects as early as in 2025.

1. Kuzminov Y. I., Koshel A. S., Kruchinskaia E. V. (2025). Platform regulation as bona fides: From economic efficiency to rule. Public Administration Issues, No. 1, pp. 7—37. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2025-0-1-7-37

2. Milyakin S. R., Skubachevskaya N. D., Polzikov D. A. (2025). Digital platforms: Mechanisms of functioning and impact on the economy. Studies on Russian Economic Development, No. 2, pp. 135—146. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.47711/0868-6351-209-135-146

3. Shelepov A. V., Kolmar O. I. (2024). Regulation of digital platforms in Russia. International Organisations Research Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 110—126. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2024-02-06

4. Acs Z. J., Lafuente E., Szerb L. (2022). A note on the configuration of the digital ecosystem in Latin America. TEC Empresarial, Vol. 16, No. 1, рр. 1—19. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v16i1.5926

5. Akcigit U., Caicedo S., Miguelez E., Stantcheva S., Sterzi V. (2018). Dancing with the stars: Innovation through interactions. NBER Working Paper, No. 24466. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24466

6. Arthur W. B. (1999). Complexity and the economy. Science, New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5411, pp. 107—109. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5411.107

7. Cennamo C. (2021). Competing in digital markets: A platform-based perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 35, No. 2, рр. 265—291. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0048

8. De Stefano V. (2016). The rise of the just-in-time workforce: On-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series, No. 71. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682602

9. Drahokoupil J., Fabo B. (2018). Outsourcing, offshoring and the deconstruction of employment: New and old challenges. In: A. Serrano-Pascual, M. Jepsen (eds.). The deconstruction of employment as a political question: ‘Employment’ as a floating signifier. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 33—61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93617-8_2

10. Drahokoupil J., Jepsen M. (2017). The digital economy and its implications for labour. 1. The platform economy. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 103—107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258917701380

11. Elsenbroich C., Polhill J. (2023). Agent-based modelling as a method for prediction in complex social systems. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 26, pp. 133—142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2152007

12. Epstein J. V. (1999). Agent-based computational models аnd generative social science. Complexity, Vol. 4, No. 5, рр. 41—60. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199905/06)4:5%3C41::AID-CPLX9%3E3.0.CO;2-F

13. EC (2017). Second phase consultation of social partners under Article 154 TFEU on a possible revision of the Written Statement Directive (Directive 91/533/EEC) in the framework of the European Pillar of Social Rights {C(2017) 6121 final}. Brussels: European Commission.

14. Goldfarb A., Tucker C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 57, No. 1, рр. 3—43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20171452

15. Harmon E., Silberman M. S. (2018). Rating working conditions on digital labor platforms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 911—960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9313-5

16. Healy J., Nicholson D., Pekarek A. (2017). Should we take the gig economy seriously? Labour & Industry. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 1—17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2017.1377048

17. ILO (2018). Digital labour platforms and the future of work: Towards decent work in the online world. Geneva: International Labour Office.

18. Kässi O., Lehdonvirta V. (2016). Building the online labour index: A tool for policy and research. Paper presented at CSCW and the Sharing Economy: The future of platforms as sites of work collaboration and trust, February 27.

19. Lafuente E., Ács Z. J., Szerb L. (2022). Analysis of the digital platform economy around the world: A network DEA model for identifying policy priorities. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 847—891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2100895

20. Lehdonvirta V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: Managing time on three online piecework platforms. New Technology, Work, and Employment, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 13—29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12102

21. Li J., Chen L., Yi J., Mao J., Liao J. (2019). Ecosystem-specific advantages in international digital commerce. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 50, No. 9, рр. 1448—1463. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00263-3

22. OECD (2019). OECD employment outlook 2019: The future of work. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en

23. OECD/ILO/European Union (2023). Handbook on measuring digital platform employment and work. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0ddcac3b-en

24. Parker G., Alstyne M. V., Jiang X. (2017). Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, рр. 255—266. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.13

25. Podszun R. (2023). From competition law to platform regulation — Regulatory choices for the Digital Markets Act. Economics E-Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/econ-2022-0037

26. Railsback S. F., Grimm V. (2019). Agent-based and individual-based modeling: A practical introduction. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.28274141

27. Schwellnus C., Geva A., Pak M., Veiel R. (2019). Gig economy platforms: Boon or bane? OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1550. https://doi.org/10.1787/fdb0570b-en

28. Stewart A., Stanford J. (2017). Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options? Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 28, pp. 420—437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304617722461

29. Stigler J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 3—21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003160

30. Wood A. J., Graham M., Lehdonvirta V., Hjorth I. (2018). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 33, No. 1, рр. 56—75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616

31. Yeow A., Soh C., Hansen R. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 27, No. 1, рр. 43—58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001

32. Yang G., Deng F., Wang Y., Xiang X. (2022). Digital paradox: Platform economy and high-quality economic development — New evidence from provincial panel data in China. Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 1—26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042225